What kind of CPU will be better for rendering? I am an architecture student and looking to build up a machine for rendering. Im having a hard time deciding on a cpu. With programs like studio max, will a quad core with high multitasking abilities be better or should i go for higher megahertz's? Id love to go for the top of the range but the budget doesn't allow it. Also, will a quad-core be so much better than a dual-core? Please help.____________________external keyword tool ~ keyworddiscovery.com ~ keycompete.com ~ compete.com ~ webmasterworld.com

Last edited by barbarax on Sun May 31, 2009 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

barbarax wrote:What kind of CPU will be better for rendering? I am an architecture student and looking to build up a machine for rendering. Im having a hard time deciding on a cpu. With programs like studio max, will a quad core with high multitasking abilities be better or should i go for higher megahertz's? Id love to go for the top of the range but the budget doesn't allow it. Also, will a quad-core be so much better than a dual-core? Please help.

Holy inappropriate thread resurrection, Batman!Welcome to TR, but do start a new thread of your own.

(I've split this thread from here, changed the subject line, and moved it to the SBA forum.)

Whether higher clock speed or more cores will benefit you most depends on how well the application takes advantage of multi-threading. I haven't personally used 3DS Max; however, I do know that it has multi-threading capabilities. So the answer to the cores vs. GHz question really depends on how well Autocad has done their multi-threading support.

That said, in general, rendering tends to be one of the easier workloads to multi-thread. So unless Autocad has really botched things badly, quad core will probably be better, unless you are comparing it against a dual-core with a significantly higher clock speed.

Having used 3dsmax, as well as other 3d applications, on single, dual and quad core processors, I would definitely recommend going with a Quad core. It has felt like night and day for me, even from a dual core processor. And I agree with the comments above mine, saying that it will certainly eat whatever you feed it, in regards to processor and ram. I've also found that having a decent video card helps with the interface itself and will make you feel better whilst using the program when you are not rendering, but that's just my experience (not to mention, decent, in my case, meant an ATi 4670, so it really isn't all that powerful)

The next answer we need from the OP is, are you buying a system or are you going to BUILD it? If you want to build it let us know and we can spec out parts. Give us your budget and country of location as well.

If you're not folding with your idle computer time you're not part of the solution.

eric93se wrote:You guys either scared the OP from the thread or he can't even find it LOL

Since he's a 1 post OP he may not even have been able to find the website again.

Too bad, I thought it was going to be an interesting build. Perhaps we should "give" the OP a budget and hypothetical spec it for him. From the tone of his OP and the tell-tale signs of his typing style I would say he's got a budget of, roughly, $1,134.86, give or take a $100...

If you're not folding with your idle computer time you're not part of the solution.

So, give him the Asus micro-ATX X58 mobo, the Ci7 920, the Xigmatek Dark Knight (or stick w/ the Intel retail version), 6x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600, an HD 4770 video card and a WD Caviar Black HDD. Add a ~500-watt Corsair power supply, an Antec case, a Samsung DVD/CD burner and he'd have one h-e-double-l of a good small system.

Considering his application, it would be nice to include one of the seriously-professional graphics cards from nVidia or ATI (as opposed to a gaming card), but they are all way over-budget. Regardless, he needs torque over horsepower and he gets that with the Core i7 and the memory.

edh wrote:Regardless, he needs torque over horsepower and he gets that with the Core i7 and the memory.

I don't follow your analogy here, but it probably just extends the widespread misunderstanding of torque. What's the equivalent of gear ratio in your analogy? In the physical world, all that you need to get more torque to the drive wheels is to use a lower gear.

Lol edh. Anyway, if 3dsmax's multithreading is anything similar to blenders, it breaks down renders into many many parts for one frame. Each part can be separately rendered in it's own thread with only a slight delay at the start of each render. Basically you should be able to look at the overall performance of the chip and take it at face value without worrying about losses. If a quad core amounts to being more total power i'd go for it. I often wish i had a quad core. I can dream of seeing 4 sections render at once with each section at nearly the same speed as my current dual core. I will be going core i7 pretty soon

*also, you don't need a seriously professional graphics card. The most you'll get out of it is smoother shader views while editing, pretty useless for anything i've done.

Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.

edh wrote:Regardless, he needs torque over horsepower and he gets that with the Core i7 and the memory.

I don't follow your analogy here, but it probably just extends the widespread misunderstanding of torque. What's the equivalent of gear ratio in your analogy? In the physical world, all that you need to get more torque to the drive wheels is to use a lower gear.

Yeah, well, it's a very imperfect analogy ... sorry about that. AutoDesk products respond better to more cores (dual Xeon/Opteron over single, 4 cores over 2, hyper-threading over non-HT) than to speed, not that increased MHz isn't a boost, too. And, they'll use pretty much all available memory, the more the better.

Having built computers for engineers and architects who use AutoDesk products, my experience indicates that money is better spent on more cores, more memory and more speed, in that order, leaving additional graphics power (which makes all those rotatable 3D buildings look so pretty) for last. Drivers for nVidia's and ATI's professional graphics cards include optimizations for AutoDesk products (and many other graphics-intensive programs aimed at professionals) not found in their gaming card drivers.